SEQ level0 \*arabic 1. The case originated
in 250 applications against Ukraine lodged with
the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ukrainian nationals, whose
details are specified in the appended tables (“the applicants”).

SEQ level0 \*arabic 3. The Government (“the
Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 4. On 25 October 2012
the applications above were communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

THE FACTS

THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

SEQ level0 \*arabic 5. On the dates set out
in the appended tables domestic courts delivered decisions according
to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have
certain actions taken in their favour. The decisions became enforceable.
However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions
in due time.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 6. Some of the
applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated
to the above non-enforcement issues.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

SEQ level0 \*arabic 7. In view of the
similarity of the applications in terms of the principal legal issues raised,
the Court finds it appropriate to join them.

III. ADMISSIBILITY OF
THE APPLICANTS’ COMPLAINTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 12952/12 AND 20248/12

SEQ level0 \*arabic 9. In application no.
12952/12 the applicant complained about failure to enforce the judgment of 19
May 2011. However, it appears from the parties’ submissions that the judgment
was fully enforced on 23 August 2011. Thus, the judgment at issue had been
fully enforced within a period of just four months.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 10. In application no.
20248/12 the applicant complained about failure to enforce the judgment of 11
August 2010. However, it was quashed on 1 October 2012 by the Higher
Administrative Court.Thus, the judgment at issue remained unenforced for a
period of nine months only.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 11. The Court considers
that abovementioned periods of non-enforcement did not impair the applicants’
right of access to a court (see, among many other authorities, Savchur v. Ukraine(dec.), no.
20338/03, 8 July 2008; Andreyenko
and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 22312/03, 19 June 2007; Zbaranskaya v. Ukraine (dec.), no.
43496/02, 11 October 2005). The Court considers that the applications, set out in Appendix 1, must be
declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

SEQ level0 \*arabic 12. The applicants
complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the decisions given in their
favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those
complaints. They relied on, expressly or in substance, Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 13. The Government
submitted, with respect to a number of applications, that no violation of the
applicant’s rights had occurred. They noted that the Law of Ukraine “On
Amending the Law of Ukraine On the State Budget for 2011” of 14 June 2011 and
the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution no.745 “On Providing Certain Amounts of
Payments, Financed at the Expense of the State Budget”, reduced the amounts
allocated by the State budget for enforcement of judgments awarding social
payments to the applicants and that the applicants’ entitlements under the
relevant legislation were accordingly reduced. They considered that the
applicants’ complaints were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 14. The Court notes the
judgments at issue are final and enforceable and have not complied with by the
State for a lengthy period of time, for which the State authorities remain
responsible. The regulations on allocation of budgetary resources do not affect
that position. Moreover, the Court recalls its constant case-law specifying
that the State’s failure to comply with the enforceable judgments in view of its
lack of budgetary funds, cannot justify non-enforcement(see Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 55, 29 June
2004). It therefore
rejects the Government’s objection to the admissibility of the applicationsset out in Appendix 2 and notes that the above complaints are not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds.
They must therefore be declared admissible.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 15. Having regard to its
well-established case-law on the subject (see Yuriy
Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no.
40450/04, §§ 56-58 and 66-70, 15 October 2009)the
Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged
non-enforcement of the decisions in the applicants’ favour. It also considers
that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the
applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage
created by such non-enforcement.

V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

SEQ level0 \*arabic 16. Some of the
applicants raised other complaints under the Convention which the Court has
carefully examined. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in
so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 17. It follows that those
complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

VI. APPLICATION
OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

SEQ level0 \*arabic 18. Article 41 of the
Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law
of the High Contracting Party concerned allows
only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just
satisfaction to the injured party.”

SEQ level0 \*arabic 19. In the
present case, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable (see Kononova and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 11770/03and 89other
applications, § 24, 6 June 2013)to award 2,000 euros (EUR) to each of the
applicants referred to in Appendix 2. These sums are to cover any pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 20. The Court considers
that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the
judgments which remain enforceable.

SEQ level0 \*arabic 21. The Court considers
it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal
lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three
percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to join the applications set out in Appendix 1 and to declare them
inadmissible;

2. Decides to join the applications set out in Appendix 2;

3. Declares admissible the complaints of the applicants, listed inAppendix 2, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13
of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the lengthy non-enforcement
of the decisions given in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic
remedies in respect of those complaints, and declares
inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

4. Holds thatthere has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention;

6. Holds

(a) that within three months the
respondent State is to enforce the domestic decisions in the applicants’favour
which remain enforceable and is to pay EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each
applicant or his or her estate in the applications set out in Appendix
2 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses,
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts
which are to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable
on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in
writing on 20 June 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.